At long last, Barack Obama Jr. released his long form birth certificate today, clearly proving he is NOT a natural born citizen. So, why has there been virtually no call in the Senate to begin impeachment proceedings? And why are so many news reporters acting as if all Obama needed to substantiate he was a Natural Born Citizen was to prove he was born in the U.S.A?

The U.S. Constitution and U.S. law, as of the time of Obama Juniors birth, still required a President to have a father (pictured top left) who was a U.S. citizen. Clearly Obamas father was a British citizen, as clearly shown on the very document Obama released.

Still not convinced? Lets take a refresher course in U.S. history. Our founding fathers didnt want any U.S. President to have mixed loyalties so they required that both parents of a President be U.S. citizens in order to qualify their son or daughter to be a Natural Born U.S. Citizen. Period. Simple. Not complicated.

Heres the exact language of the Naturalization Act of 1790, passed by the first U.S. Congress: And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States 

So there you have it. Obama is not eligible to be U.S. President and needs to be impeached and convicted quickly to avoid a constitutional crisis and to follow rule of law.

Bottom line: It doesnt matter if Obama was born in Hawaii, which was actually a U.S. Territory at the time of Obamas birth and not yet a U.S. state. What does matter is that Obama Jr.s dad Obama Sr. was not a U.S. citizen and thus rendering his sons Presidential aspirations patently illegal.

Need more proof? The founding fathers put the definition in writing from the defining documents of their day. Founding father John Jay used the definition of natural born Citizen straight from The Law of Nations (Vattel) that states: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens  (Vattel in Book 1, Sec 212)

(page 246)
And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.

(pg 250)
6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.

Ok, I’ll try to explain this a little clearer.... I believe he is saying that his father was not American, so because of that reason alone, O does not qualify under the requirements of the constitution.

“The Framers didnt just pull that phrase out of thin air, either. That phrase was well known to educated people of the time, and it was universally understood to mean, one who is born on the soil of their country to two citizen parents of that same country.”

Not true. The phrase NBC existed prior to the Constitution, and it existed as the American version of natural born subject. At independence, every NBS became a NBC.

Vattel never used the phrase ‘natural born citizen’, nor did the Founder’s use his phrase and require the President to be “indigenous”.

47
posted on 04/27/2011 7:26:25 PM PDT
by Mr Rogers
(Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)

“And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

This isn’t the quote you want. First, if we’re to believe the birth certificate (for the sake of argument), he wasn’t born beyond sea or out of the limits of the US, so the second part doesn’t apply. And second, it only calls for the father to be a resident at some point, which his father was, when he went to college here.

Yes. “Natural born” means the individual is a citizen at the moment of birth. “Naturalized” is a person who was once a citizen of another country and became a US citizen.

Until the 14th Amendment, a newborn’s citizenship status was determined by the citizenship status of his parents. This was standard policy in the West going back to the days of the Roman Republic. The 14th Amendment replaced that policy with a geographic policy. One simply had to be born in the United States to be a citizen at birth. This was done so that Southern Democrats could not use grandfather clauses to deny citizenship to blacks. A good idea at the time, it has since lead to anchor babies.

no. the COLB only has the race of the father, not the birthplace (though it should be tracking citizenship status at the time). as his father never became an American, it doesn’t matter. we have a document that now shows his father was born in another country.

now we have proof that both parents were not citizens at the time of his birth

pretty clear cut. to ignore this would be an affront to the integrity of the Constitution

60
posted on 04/27/2011 7:35:32 PM PDT
by sten
(fighting tyranny never goes out of style)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.